In the mounting attacks on Hillary Clinton by her opponents in the contest for the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential candidacy, and in the question-answer session with John McCain wherein a woman asked what is to be done about the “bitch,” you are seeing a preview of what will happen if the Democrats are stupid or even crazy enough to nominate Hillary or allow her to be on their ticket as prospective vice president. The result in either situation will be the dirtiest political campaign of modern times and a landslide victory for the Republicans.
Hillary is more vulnerable to attack than any Democratic Party candidate other than the fraudulently named “Barack Obama.” Undoubtedly millions of women, Democrats as well as Republicans, consider her to be so morally degraded from her acceptance of her husband’s sleazy sexual exploitation of other women that she is the one Democratic Party candidate for whom they will not vote. Amid all the hoopla about Hillary’s popularity according to the positive polls, the negative polls are being ignored. The negative polls have shown repeatedly that many more voters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances than those same voters would not vote for John Edwards under any circumstances. That ignored factor is the key factor. Unfortunately, Democrats were not intelligent and perceptive enough to opt for Edwards as their presidential candidate.
Duplicity, Evasion, and Corruption
It is not merely Hillary’s capitulation to Bill Clinton’s embarrassing exploitation of Monica Lewinsky and other women which is causing Democrats to tell pollsters that they reject Hillary so totally that they will either defect or sit out the election if she is the party’s nominee. Informed Democrats are fed up with Hillary’s duplicity, with her taking money from rich gangsters and from the most notorious corporate crooks in the U.S., and with the “solutions” she offers for social problems that are not only vague but also, worse yet, are calculated to maintain the status quo. She offers no workable means of redistributing wealth so that the rich cannot keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer. She has no fix for the broken tax structure. Her “universal” health plan is full of critical flaws and will amount to a monetary bonanza for wealthy property owners. She has no answer to what must be done to stop disastrous overpopulation, fueled by an insane immigration policy, that is now defeating and will continue to defeat any effort to get control of global warming and the destruction of the environment and the earth’s resources. She has expressed her purported sympathy for American workers’ loss of jobs, and the resultant devastation to them and their families, from layoffs and “outsourcings”; but, at the same time, she has accepted funding from the major corporations responsible for the layoffs and “outsourcings” and has let the officers and major shareholders of those corporations know not very subtly that they can depend on her to let them continue on their destructive path of doing business in ways that are devastating to American breadwinners and their families. Whatever she offers as positions on international policy demonstrate that she is not and cannot be the female equivalent of an influential statesman, that in fact she might be even more of a disaster on the international scene than George Bush and Condoleeza Rice.
Nor is she the “Christian” she professes to be. There are many reasons why that is so. I will just mention one here. It is a cornerstone of Christian religion that “Jesus” (Yeshua) drove the “moneychangers” out of the temple. [New Testament – Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46.] Hillary brings the modern moneychangers in to the temple. One of the largest sources of her campaign funds, now over $100 million (which sets a new record in U.S. politics), consists of the major Wall Street financiers and investment brokers (named later in this report). For the first time in recent U.S. politics, those moneychangers have switched from providing the major amount of their campaign funds to a Republican candidate, instead delivering their contributions to Hillary Clinton. The reason is clear. She herself was involved in the savings and loan industry scandals of the 1980’s and 1990’s, she escaped prosecution and imprisonment only because her partner Vince Foster committed suicide rather than reveal her and his role in the scandals, and she could be depended upon as president to veto any legislation designed to curb the corruption in the stock market and the money and banking industries.
Why Democrats will defect rather than vote for her
Not only worrisome, but also downright nauseating to informed Democrats, is the enormous amount of money from Wall Street, the biggest corporations, and the defense industry, being poured into the Hillary-for-president bandwagon steamrolled by the mass miscommunications media’s hype that is designed to stampede the public into believing she has the nomination sealed and must be the Democratic Party’s candidate. The question raised is what these funders of the Hillary-for-President campaign have been promised in return for their contributions.
If you visit a variety of blogs and newsletters on the internet, you will find Democrats calling Hillary the one candidate who will enable a Republican to be elected president in 2008, and announcing in advance that they are willing to let that happen rather than vote for her.
Following is a profile of Hillary Clinton which you have not seen in the mass miscommunications media. If Democrats have any sense left – something they have not demonstrated since their recent assumption of control of Congress – they will use the ammunition to drive Hillary Clinton out of contention, lest her nomination as the party’s presidential candidate ensure that once again a Republican will be elected president of the United States.
Schizoid from the Beginning
Articles and books about Hillary Clinton, as well as letters that she wrote which have been publicized, demonstrate that from the beginning, in her transition from teenager to adult and in her struggle to determine her social and political positions, she was flighty, confused, erratic, and finally duplicitous to the point that her nature could only be characterized as schizoid. There are stories about her, lacking hard evidence, that she experienced difficulty in determining whether she was heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Those remain stories, not established fact. There is no question, however, about Hillary’s problems in figuring out what her social and political positions should be.
In politics Hillary is at first a Goldwater Republican. Then she decides it is immoral to be a Goldwater Republican, and slides into partial position as a Democrat. There is a flirtation with social reformers identified as “liberals” and “progressives.” She even begins dressing as and pretending to be somewhat of a “hippie.” But, when all of that experimentation is over, she settles upon being a power-driven politician, and in turn she arrives at the perception that in order to be successful in politics she must prostitute herself in any way necessary.
What brought Bill and Hillary together
The idea that the good-looking Bill Clinton and the ugly Hillary Rodham became physically enamored of each other in their college days, as they embarked on their quest to become influential politicians, is worthy of any perceptive person’s contempt. Though Bill dressed sloppily and grew a scraggly beard, he nevertheless managed to be attractive to women, while Hillary seemed determined to make herself look as ugly as possible. She was already handicapped by piano-stool legs and a disproportionately large backside. She had no need to keep her face unadorned with makeup or lipstick, and her hair unkempt, to make herself look as homely as possible; but that is what she did. It must be construed that right from the start of their relationship, Bill sought sex with other women because Hillary was undesirable, Hillary accepted his indiscriminate exploitation of women gullible enough to believe his expressions of “love” for them which were equivalent to that word emanating from the mouth of a whore, and Bill and Hillary sought a mutually beneficial partnership for advancement in politics above all other considerations.
and 
In college days after a makeover
At first it was Bill who stood to gain most from the relationship, because Hillary had become politically influential in some circles while she was still in her college years, while Bill had not yet blossomed. That situation turned around, however, when Bill became the most popular Democrat in Arkansas. His predictable ascension to attorney general and then governor of the state was the deciding factor in Hillary’s decision to be his mate, and that factor continued to be the dominating one even after she and Bill were married and Bill was using state troopers to arrange liaisons for him with women who were functioning as outlets for his sex drive that could not be consummated with Hillary.
That Hillary knew from the start about every one of the liaisons is beyond dispute. Friends of hers have revealed to journalists and biographers of Hillary that they asked her how she managed to put up with Bill’s embarrassing promiscuity, and they did not believe her stock answer that has appeared in her memoirs and that has been quoted in articles and books: that there has been, between her and Bill, “a love which has persisted for decades,” and that she has been so deeply in love with Bill, she could not abide the thought of losing him, and this deep love has overcome his treachery and deceit. The most honest of Hillary’s female confidants have offered a different explanation: Hillary, starting with her college days and extending to the present, has been driven by a relentless lust for power that overrides even her considerable quest for riches and that is paramount when pitted against any desire she may have to be romantically and physically loved by either man or woman.
Jackie as role model
It seems that no analyst of Hillary’s path to power has pointed out the role model she used: Jacqueline (Jackie) Bouvier Kennedy Onassis. The literature on John F. (Jack) Kennedy’s assignations with actresses, models, prostitutes, and other types of women, has become massively documented. It is absolutely clear that Jackie was aware of all of them, and that she told her closest friends of her reason for accepting the humiliation: it is the price that a woman pays for marriage to a man of wealth and power, and especially when the marriage will propel her to the position of “First Lady” of America and an international celebrity in her own right. So consuming, so all-important to her, was the role she acquired as the “First Lady,” that Jackie arranged frivolous trips away from the White House specifically to allow Jack to indulge in one of his favorite pastimes: all-day sex orgies in and around the White House swimming pool with hookers that the president’s staff hired for his pleasure. If that is what it takes, Hillary decided, so be it.
Even though Hillary had become influential in politics while in college, that influence was localized. She was in no position to become any more than a relatively minor leader in Democratic Party circles – until she hooked up with Bill. Much less did she envision obtaining the kind of financial connections she would need if she wanted to make a run for any major national office. She was aware of the moneybags supporting the rise to political ascendancy of Bill in Arkansas, and she saw the prospects of digging into those money sources as Bill’s wife. It worked for Jackie; it had to work for her, Hillary.
Hillary’s Role in the Corrupted Rose Law Firm
Once a woman has decided to prostitute herself for a man in order to share his power and wealth, she has lost pride, self-respect, decency, and the incentive to be honest. It was that great loss which Hillary Rodham Clinton carried with her into the Rose Law Firm when her husband Bill became Attorney General of Arkansas in 1976.
There is no question that but for Bill, Hillary would never have been accepted into the Rose Law Firm, one of the oldest law firms in the U.S. At the time when 551 other applicants had passed the Bar examination in Washington, D.C., Hillary failed it; and she never tried again to pass it. She was not even a fifth-rate lawyer. Note, however: Leslie W. Steen, Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court, informs me that both Hillary and Bill have been licensed to practice law in Arkansas since October 1973, but that while Hillary “has had no disciplinary actions taken against her,” Bill’s license to practice law was “suspended for five years by the Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct” in February 2001 “based on a complaint filed by a federal district judge regarding his [Bill’s] testimony in a federal proceeding” and he “has not applied for reinstatement.”
The Rose Law Firm is staffed with attorneys skilled in representing some of the biggest and most corrupt corporations in the U.S. The firm advertises itself this way: “Our practice focuses on complex commercial business transactions and litigation. We represent clients in major business matters regionally, nationally, and internationally. The needs of business are our primary concern.” As part of that concern, the Rose Law Firm has been the mouthpiece for some of the most ardently anti-labor union corporations in the U.S., including Tyson Foods, Wal-Mart, and the Hussman Family mass media holdings (which include the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette).
Hillary’s role in the firm
The extent to which Hillary undertook representation for Wal-Mart in its union-busting activities while she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm is uncertain. It is only established that she became a member of Wal-Mart’s board of directors during the time when the directors were promulgating the corporation into a vast nationwide network by paying workers substandard wages and denying them health and welfare benefits and union representation.
More certain is the role Hillary played in the savings and loan industry scandals, especially in the way she handled the books for one of the major offenders in the defrauding of investors, Morgan Guaranty. Hillary has long claimed that she was unaware of the Morgan Guaranty scams which bilked investors of millions of dollars. Though records of Morgan Guaranty transactions were destroyed by unnamed members of the Rose Law Firm, enough remnants of those records survived to reveal notes going back and forth from Hillary to partner Vince Foster, indicating that she was involved with him in cooking the books. In the midst of that revelation years later, when Foster was deputy White House counsel in the Bill Clinton presidential administration, rather than continue to face the heat on him, Foster committed suicide. With him went the full story of Hillary’s involvement in the scandals, and she has continued to deny knowledge of what was happening. But if Foster had not committed suicide and had been forced to testify before a congressional investigation committee or in court, you can bet that Hillary Clinton would have been sent to prison along with Susan McDougal, who took the fall.
The Whitewater Scandal
Missing documents are what did in the prosecution of the Clintons in the Whitewater Development Corporation scandal. Exactly who destroyed documents that would have provided sufficient evidence to tie the Clintons to the scandal, which sent Susan McDougal to prison, and her husband to the grave, has not been established. Consequently, Bill and Hillary were allowed to escape blame upon the contention that they were “idealistic kids” flimflammed by the McDougals in an investment scheme which bilked investors of their money on the basis of fraudulent representations.
In his book about Hillary, A Woman in Charge, the prestigious Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein dismisses the Clintons’ involvement in the Whitewater scandal as “overblown.” Really? It concerns a situation wherein Bill entered into a business deal with the owner of a savings and loan company over which Bill had regulatory authority first as Attorney General and later as Governor of Arkansas. The idea that Bill and Hillary were just “idealistic kids,” drawn by the McDougals into a scam which the Clintons construed as beneficial for investors and Arkansas enterprise, is ridiculous on the face of it, though apparently it is true that they lost money in the process.
A Question of Ethics
While Hillary can conceal what she did in the law offices of the Rose Law Firm to help her husband and the firm’s corrupt clients, she cannot evade her reaction to the public revelations of Bill’s sex exploitations. She has dragged out some of the most absurd excuses in the history of women defending wealthy and powerful husbands’ treachery. For example, by the time that the Paula Jones imbroglio erupted, Hillary was fully aware that Bill was using state troopers to arrange trysts for him with women who were outright or virtual prostitutes. That was not enough to preclude Hillary’s using her secretary to help defend Bill by ordering her to spread the lie that Paula had been “stalking” Bill. If the media people had pinpointed the source of that excuse for Bill’s paying a state trooper to bring Paula Jones to him in a hotel room upon the representation that Bill “wanted to meet her,” they would have learned it was Hillary’s ordering her secretary to spread that rumor. It was to become one of the excuses Hillary used for Bill’s inducing Monica Lewinsky to perform oral sex on him.
Nor can Hillary hide the role she played in litigation at times in relatively minor cases, since the managing partner of the law firm would not entrust her with the big ones. Her representation of corrupt corporations in litigation is a matter of court records. For example, rather than arrange a settlement for a man who found part of a rat in a can of pork and beans that he bought, Hillary put up a vigorous defense on behalf of the canning company responsible.
In the adversary system at the root of the American legal-judicial apparatus, there are always two sides. That is the excuse common to all lawyers who represent evil human beings in court by employing all sorts of technicalities in motions designed to evade trial of the issues involved. Ethical considerations are tossed aside. So it was with Hillary in first becoming a partner in a law firm representing corrupt corporations such as Tyson Foods, the lawbreaking polluter of Arkansas’s rivers and streams, and then accepting their money for major financial support in Bill’s and her own political campaigns.
Hillary’s connection with Tyson Foods, Inc.,
one of the worst polluters and labor exploiters in the U.S.
During Bill Clinton’s ascendancy to his status as the most prominent politician in Arkansas, as the state’s attorney general and then governor, major support for him came from Tyson Foods, Inc. At the same time, Bill’s wife Hillary was a partner in a law firm that represented Tyson Foods in litigations brought against the corporation by labor unions, environmental protection agencies, civil rights lawyers, and the U.S. Government. Tyson Foods provided major financial support for Bill’s campaign to become president of the U.S. And now Tyson Foods is providing financial support for Hillary in her run for the presidency.
Hence, it is important to know something about Tyson Foods, Inc.
Tyson Foods is a multi-national corporation based in Springdale, Arkansas. The corporation “processes,” markets, and exports more chicken, beef, and pork than any other company anywhere on planet earth. Fortune magazine rates the company as the largest producer of meat. According to Forbes, it is one of the 100 largest companies in the U.S. Its annual revenues now approach $30 billion.
Tyson employs 107,000 workers at more than 300 facilities throughout the globe. The company maintains contracts with more than 6,700 chicken farmers. At 54 “chicken plants,” 13 “beef plants,” and six “pork plants,” Tyson “processes” more than 42 million chickens, 107,000 cattle, and 350,000 pigs a week. By “plants” Tyson means slaughterhouses. By “processes” Tyson means kills.
Live chicken, having missed machine Flies cluster around a pile of
that kills, is dropped into a vat of chicken carcasses dumped
scalding water at Tyson plant. into open ground.
Brutal slaughterhouse conditions
Over a period of three months, using a hidden camera, an investigator from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) documented gruesome scenes at a Tyson Foods slaughterhouse in Heflin, Alabama. Photographs obtained by the investigator reveal birds being mutilated while still alive as the result of defective throat-cutting machines, workers ripping the heads off chickens that had been missed by the machines, chickens being scalded alive in feather-removal tanks, and plant employees tossing dying birds around for “sport.”
The chairman of Tyson’s board of directors, John Tyson, a self-professed “Christian,” avoids questions about the methods used by his company to provide “processed” chickens to Catholic Charities and other agencies that hand out free food. The media releases he generates via his extensive publicity machine boast that Tyson as a corporation is deeply religious, employing around 130 part-time chaplains – “evangelical” Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, and even some Muslim imams – to offer counseling, and prayer during mealtime.
Felony prosecutions against Tyson, by contrast, reveal a decidedly unholy corporation.
The company’s horrible environmental record
Sued for massive air and water pollution, Tyson has pleaded guilty to and coughed up millions of dollars in fines for dozens of violations of the federal Clean Water Act such as illegally dumping untreated wastewater into the rivers and streams of Arkansas and Missouri. The company has been sued successfully by the Sierra Club for discharging dangerous quantities of ammonia from its factories and for using chicken waste as soil fertilizer in a way that pollutes drinking water sources.
Last year the company hired researchers at the University of Arkansas to study ways of controlling its environmental contamination and brutal treatment of animals. There has been no conclusive report, however, on whether or not Tyson has cleaned up its act.
An equally horrible labor record
Tyson’s labor record is equally atrocious. The company has smuggled illegal aliens into the U.S. from Mexico to work on its production lines. Two of the six plant managers indicted for those violations of immigration law accepted plea bargain deals, and one of them committed suicide. The company itself, however, was acquitted in the case against the six by a federal grand jury on the finding that it did not knowingly hire illegal aliens.
On the other hand, there is a class action lawsuit alleging that Tyson’s practice of hiring illegal aliens depresses wages for its workers overall. The complaint in the suit alleges that Tyson has violated federal law against racketeering by conspiring with the National Council of La Raza and the League of United Latin American Countries to avoid questioning immigration status of anyone with a Hispanic surname. Such claims against Tyson must be read in conjunction with the company’s long history of union-busting, payment of substandard wages, and withholding of health and welfare benefits from its workers.
In seeming contradiction of its willingness to use workers classified somewhat differently than “caucasian,” Tyson has been accused of discriminating against dark-colored workers by such practices as posting “whites only” signs on bathroom doors, failing to curb plant managers’ comments to workers that are described as “racist,” and permitting terminations of or disciplinary action against employees who complain about the insults. Tyson paid nearly a million dollars to dark-skinned plaintiffs in one lawsuit brought on such grounds, in order to avoid trial by settling out of court.
More than guilt by association
It may be alleged that linking Bill and Hillary Clinton to Tyson Foods falls into the category of guilt by association. Well, it may be that Bill and Hillary have never been officers of the corporation, although whether or not they are now or have been stockholders in Tyson Foods, Inc. over the years is unknown. What is known is that Bill Clinton as attorney general and governor of Arkansas took hardly any action against Tyson’s corrupt labor and pollution practices, Bill and Hillary have received lots of money from Tyson, and the flow of cash into their coffers covers all of the time during the two decades of the past century when Bill was attorney general and governor of Arkansas, the time when during the same period Hillary was a partner in the Rose Law Firm that represented Tyson, and the years of Bill’s and Hillary’s presidential campaigns.
It is difficult to escape the accusation of being duplicitous and hypocritical when you accept large sums of money from a company that pollutes the environment, and carries on atrocious labor policies, at the same time that you claim in political speeches that you stand for protection of the environment and workers’ rights. Such an accusation does not fall into the category of guilt by association. The accusation is based on the legitimate view of Bill and Hillary Clinton as scam artists who proclaim beneficence while they are guilty of being in league with, or even of what may be construed as accepting bribes from, key supporters that put profits ahead of legality and common decency.
Hillary’s years in the White House
When Bill Clinton entered the White House in 1982, Democrats dominated the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the states’ governorships, and the majority of the state legislatures. By time the Clinton presidency had ended, the Republicans had turned those situations around as the result of disastrous economic and international policies.
Much of the misdirection of the Clinton administration was the result of Bill’s allowing Hillary to dominate policies. For example, Bill let her formulate the “universal health care” plan that never materialized.
All of the while, Hillary was building up her investment portfolio via her connections to some of the most corrupt corporations represented by the Rose Law Firm in which she was a partner. None were more corrupt than the banks, such as Morgan Guaranty, responsible for bilking investors of millions of dollars. Questioned about how she could stomach representing banks at the heart of the banking industry scandals during the latter part of the last century, Hillary replied:
“For goodness sake, you can’t be a lawyer if you don’t represent banks.” [Quoted in the Los Angeles Times of April 9, 2000.]
Wealth from Cattle Futures and Wal-Mart
In recent articles about Hillary, it seems to have been forgotten that during her years in the White House there was quite a stir over her trading in cattle futures, beginning in the years when Bill was Attorney General of Arkansas. Via inside information she obtained, she was able to turn an original investment of $1,000 into $100,000. Of course, these days that would amount to a tiny portion of her investment portfolio, which now exceeds $50 million according to a recent campaign disclosure filing with the Federal Election Commission.
Nearly half that amount was hidden in a blind trust that Hillary and Bill established in 1983, when they took over the White House. The trust was valued at $1 million at that time. The trust was dissolved last year after many Democrats began chafing at disclosures that most of the money came from investments in pharmaceutical firms, oil companies, weapons manufacturers, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, and Wal-Mart. Hillary was on the Wal-Mart board of directors from 1986 to 1992. The reason why Hillary had not divulged these holdings as a U.S. senator was that senators are not required to do so, while candidates for the U.S. presidency must disclose them.
The “right-wing conspiracy” excuse
Since the public is used to stories of politicians and others in positions of power accumulating wealth, understandably the accounts of the Clintons’ wealth and how they obtained it did not cause as much of an outcry as did the revelation of Bill’s sexual dalliances (whether he defines them as sexual or not). What Bill did with the young, impressionable intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House, and Hillary’s excuse for it, should not be forgotten. To be blunt about it, Bill had Monica perform oral sex on him, created a use for a cigar unique in the annals of the cigar industry and the U.S. presidency, and led Monica to believe that he was so enamored of her that he would consider divorcing Hillary to marry Monica.
When the Monica Lewinsky scandal erupted, Hillary proclaimed that the clamor over it was part of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to bring down Bill. That excuse was employed by Hillary even as Democratic members of Congress such as Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia were denouncing Bill as a liar, perjurer, and grossly unethical philanderer.
The question which now haunts the Democratic Party is this: How many women, regardless of party affiliation, will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances because they believe her tolerance of Bill’s conduct has degraded women generally? No pollster has asked that specific question.
Where Hillary Gets Her Money
During the years when she was on the Wal-Mart board of directors and reaping profits from her stock holdings in the corporation, Wal-Mart was growing into one of the biggest and most profitable chain operations in the U.S. by depressing wages of its non-union workers and denying them health and welfare benefits. Not only was she part of the team that formulated the strategy which enabled the corporation to create more than a million operations nationwide on the backs of underpaid employees, but also, as a member of the Rose Law Firm that has represented Wal-Mart, Hillary helped to stave off prosecution of the giant company for antitrust violations.
Reaping profits and taking financial support from corrupt corporations such as Wal-Mart and Tyson Foods during the Arkansas governorship and U.S. presidency of her husband established the pattern for Hillary’s New York senatorial campaign and her present run for a return to the White House. For example, one of her biggest contributors in the senatorial campaign, and also one of her biggest now, is Entergy Corporation, which has garnered substantial profits from its hazardous Indian Point nuclear power plant 24 miles north of Manhattan that environmentalists call “Chernobyl on the Hudson.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ordered nine shutdowns of the plant for lack of safety. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and 12 members of Congress have demanded that the plant be shut down permanently. Hillary has refused to join them in that demand.
Hillary’s Connections to ‘Outsourcing’ Companies
While Hillary has professed to be a friend of the American worker and protector of jobs for U.S. citizens, she has consistently reaped monetary support from firms that deprive Americans of jobs by shifting them (“outsourcing”) abroad. One of Hillary’s strongest backers is the huge Indian firm Tata Consultancy Services, which has been responsible for transporting thousands of jobs from the U.S. to India while at the same time its officers have arranged to bring around 8,000 foreigners into the U.S. on temporary visas to provide work for American companies where the job openings could have been filled by men and women born in the U.S. [The figure was provided jointly by Senators Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).] In order to help Tata and other firms engaged in this process, Hillary has advocated increasing the present number of temporary visas allowed from 65,000 to 115,000 per year.
Hillary’s duplicity in speaking before a labor audience as the champion of American workers, and then speaking to a business audience as the protector of corporate rights to obtain production abroad by use of men and women who can be paid much lower wages, drew this caustic remark from John Minao, founder of the Programmers Guild: “It’s just two-faced. We see her undermining U.S. workers and helping the offshoring business, and then she comes back to the U.S. and says [to American workers who have lost jobs] ‘I’m concerned about your pain.’”
Funding from Crooks
Hillary has never exhibited any concern about the sources from which she gets money. Crooks such as Peter Franklin Paul will do. He served three years in prison for defrauding the government of Cuba in a fake coffee swindle and for dealing in cocaine. After he was released from prison he violated parole by using false passports, and for that offense he was incarcerated again, this time for 20 months. Somehow Paul has nevertheless managed to keep raking in large sums of money from his enterprises: so much money that he was able to slip $2 million of it to Hillary. At least $721,000 of that sum was not reported to the Federal Elections Commission, but instead of Hillary it was her fundraiser Andrew Grossman who
had to pay the civil fine for the offense.
Clintons with Paul and one of his bimbos
Another major Hillary fundraiser, Norman Hsu, has been convicted twice for defrauding investors of millions of dollars, and is now facing up to 50 years in prison if the authorities can finally manage to keep him from fleeing to Hong Kong, as he has before. Hsu raised nearly a million dollars for Hillary before her campaign managers were forced by media publicity to return the money to donors. But Hillary has stated that if the donors solicited by Hsu donate the funds to her campaign individually, she will take the money.
Funding from the Defense Industry and Wall Street
The money from criminals is relatively small potatoes compared to the huge contributions to Hillary from the defense industry and Wall Street. Officers and shareholders of Lockheed, Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon have all chipped in generously. Wall Street firms that have been pouring money into the campaign for Hillary include Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley. Those firms and many other big business entities have provided a major part in setting an election campaign fund record of more than $100 million for Hillary.
Mass Miscommunications Media pundits explain the willingness of big business dynamos to contribute heavily to Hillary as a sign of belief on their part that she will be the Democratic Party’s candidate for president and that she will defeat the Republican candidate. But negative polls continue to show that even while Hillary leads in popularity among potential Democrat voters, she is so unpopular with Republicans and independents and enough Democrats to make a difference that she will lose to any of the five major Republican candidates for election to the presidency. Do the big corporate donors disbelieve the polls? Or is there some factor that is being missed?
The Mythical Hillary vis a vis the Real Hillary
There is a theory promoted by Hillary’s propaganda strategists, and a cooperative mass miscommunications media, that underlying the smiling perpetrator of politics as usual lies a fiery feminist, ready when she attains the ultimate power position to explode fully into views now concealed for practical reasons: views designed to correct injustices suffered by the poor and a majority of the middle class, views aimed at breaking the hold of the corporate crooks on Congress, the nation’s business, and international policies. That is all myth. The real Hillary does not match that theory.
Throughout her six-year career as the junior senator from New York, Hillary has partnered with Republicans in blocking measures such as more assistance for poor working mothers or mothers on welfare, weakening measures proposed for campaign finance reform, supporting the Bush Administration’s requests for more billions of dollars to be funneled into the disastrous military operations in Iraq, and limiting the power of government to regulate such corrupt corporate practices as “outsourcing” and offshore drilling for oil. Look through her record, and you will find a Hillary that has not been an advocate of creating a more equitable distribution of wealth or curbing the ability of the wealthiest American individuals and corporations to dodge taxes. It is precisely because of big business trust in Hillary’s continuing to place corporate and wealthy individuals’ interests above the welfare of the majority of Americans, and her determination to support U.S. military adventures, that she is obtaining the largest share of campaign funding from Wall Street and the defense industry: much more than those powerhouses are directing to the presidential campaigns of Republicans. Unless their thinking is that if they can propel Hillary into the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee a Republican will be elected because she cannot beat any of the major Republican candidates (which is what the latest polls are showing), then the reason for their betting on Hillary is that even if she loses, they will still benefit from the role she has played on their behalf and will continue to play on their behalf in the U.S. Senate.
Hillary’s flawed, corrupt health plan
There is also perpetuation of myth in accounts of Hillary’s quest for “universal health care.” To pay for her multi-billion-dollar health plan, Hillary proposes to support existing measures to eliminate certain tax cuts for the rich beginning in 2010 and to freeze the tax on estates at 2009 levels. Any money freed up as the result of the tax cut measure, however, is already designated for reduction of budget deficits, and as for the freeze on estate tax at 2009 levels, that would cost the U.S. Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Under current law, it’s a tax cut, and it’s going to the wealthiest two percent of estates,” said Aviva Aron-Dine, a Center policy analyst.
Nor would Hillary’s health care plan provide treatment for the middle class that is inexpensive in the long run. Under a similar plan in effect in Canada, the middle class is paying a premium of only $100 a month, but at the same time their taxes have been increased to pay for the cost of the plan, and they have to pay a lot of extra money for certain types of tests and corrective devices.
There is no assurance that under Hillary’s plan all Americans would be able to obtain a regular primary physician, readily get emergency room treatment in hospitals, or be freed from having to pay special costs for expensive devices such as braces and splints. Moreover, physicians and hospitals would be free to reject treatment and surgery for patients on a number of grounds (too obese, addiction to alcohol or drugs, too old to justify procedures). Above all other considerations not mentioned or barely mentioned by the Mass Miscommunications Media in its seeming efforts to stampede the public into making Hillary the Democratic Party’s candidate, Hillary’s plan will leave control of the nation’s health to the private sector: hospitals, clinics, doctor associations, and the pharmaceutical industry.
Predominant characteristics: duplicity and deceit
Any objective analysis of Hillary Clinton’s positions and conduct must lead to the conclusion that the major characteristics to be attributed to her, in all that she does, are duplicity and deceit. As explained in the prior parts of this report, Hillary appears before an organization representing the “common people” and professes to be acting for their welfare, and then goes off to a meeting with organizations that support increased profits for big business ueber alles and promises them that she will be protecting them against any schemes to undermine their power and ability to reap the major part of the available wealth.
After “Barack Obama” (not his true name) announced that if a certain kind of crisis arose he might be in favor of using nuclear weapons, Hillary issued a public statement chastising him on the ground that “presidents should not discuss hypothetical military situations.” But in a prior statement, during a televised interview, she said: “I would certainly not take use of nuclear weapons off the table.”
While claiming at times to disfavor the death penalty and to modify profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry with socialistic measures, during a campaign stop in Williamsburg, Iowa, on December 8, 2007, Hillary accused Obama of being “too far left” to be trusted with the U.S. presidency based on positions of his expressed a decade ago: that he opposes the death penalty and is in favor of socialized medicine – which is what Hillary gets, by the way, as a U.S. senator: one hundred percent free medical care.
Perhaps the most glaring evidence of Hillary’s duplicity and deceit lies in the excuse she has offered for supporting George Bush’s disastrous military adventure in Iraq. She has claimed repeatedly that she did not vote for war in Iraq, but only to give Bush authority to pursue war if he decided it was necessary; but she has neglected to add that she voted against an amendment proposed by Democratic Senator Carl Levin which would have required Bush to return to Congress for war authorization if diplomatic efforts to resolve the purported crisis in Iraq failed. At the same time that she produces that particular part of the doubletalk, Hillary also claims that she voted to provide funds for operations in Iraq because Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told her that there would be no all-out war, but rather the Bush Administration would be emphasizing diplomacy. To this day Condee calls Hillary a liar. But of course, given the outrageous lying by both women, it is practically impossible to determine which one is telling the truth.
Conclusion
As one who has engaged in extensive public interest litigation in the state and federal courts, usually without representation by a lawyer, I am accustomed to winding up a written pleading with a required section labeled “Conclusion.” Though what I have presented in my series on Hillary has been more of a factual and analytical picture than an argument, I am moved to follow the practice in law of winding up with a conclusion. I come right to the point: Hillary’s record is horrible. She does not deserve to hold any public office, much less the presidency of the U.S. If the Democratic Party is stupid or crazy enough to nominate her, the most likely outcome of the 2008 presidential election following some of the dirtiest tactics in modern American politics will be the election of a Republican. Democrats who look upon that probable outcome as a disaster ought to consider the potential result of a Hillary Clinton presidency if the recent polls turn out to be wrong and she succeeds in beating the Republican candidate: an even worse disaster.
Sources
Among the sources used for this consolidated series of articles are Carl Bernstein’s book A Woman in Charge, and Peter and Timothy Flaherty’s book The First Lady; reports from the Federal Election Commission; reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; reports from Source Watch; the Congressional Record; and the following articles:
Art Berman – “Hillary, Inc.” – The Nation, June 4, 2007.
Andy Borowitz – “Clinton Campaign Reaches Out to Other Fugitives” – The Huffington Post, September 19, 2007.
Ronald A. Cass – “Sandy Berger and the Real Hillary Clinton” – Real Clear Politics, October 18, 2007.
Leonard Doyle – “Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary” – Independent UK, October 31, 2007.